Waqar Younis vs Brett Lee (ODIs)

[TheJediBrah]

he was a new ball bully. as soon as it stopped moving the pie factory commenced production with bonus wides and no balls to boot.

He was a terrible death bowler.

Hey no arguments here. He leaked runs at the death. He never should have been bowled there though, that was just poor captaincy.

And his peak was ~2002-2008 IMO

It was around 2003-2005 where he was in a league of his own (still just talking about new white ball here)

edit: in fact that's probably another point in his favour. If he was utilised properly (5-6 overs with the new ball + 1 or 2 middle overs bursts) rather than bowling 3-4 at the death (and getting 1/35) he could have ATG stats. Who cares if he's not versatile enough to bowl at the death, in an ATG side you've got other bowlers to do that

 

[Spikey]

lee had two calendar years where he averaged below 20 and took over 40 wickets. that four game peak must have been insane.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not only was Lee better with the new ball, Waqar was not particularly good with it. Later career when he was bowling 130s, he was better though.

Even then, so often Lee was only good with the nurry for an over or two. Bowling within himself he was quality because it was still lightning but also with really useful seam movement. Overs 3-5, Lee was ripe for some loose ones, even though he was bowling quicker.

 

[vcs]

Both great ODI bowlers, two of the most destructive bowlers of all time.

 

[smash84]

Waqar was awesome with the old ball though. And definitely better than Lee at the death. Those swinging Yorkers could clean up the opposition faster than any other thing. Of course he could be carted around too but good death bowling has a big premium in ODIs.

 

[stephen]

Waqar took 11 wickets @35 in matches involving Brett Lee. Brett Lee took 18 wickets @24 in matches involving Waqar.

Pretty clear as to who was better in those matches.

 

[Starfighter]

In other news, small sample size is small and younger fast bowlers tend to be better than ones near the end of their careers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In other news, small sample size is small and younger fast bowlers tend to be better than ones near the end of their careers.

Is that actually the case though?

Agree that it's a weird thing for Stephen to bring up though as "proof"

 

[smash84]

Waqar took 11 wickets @35 in matches involving Brett Lee. Brett Lee took 18 wickets @24 in matches involving Waqar.

Pretty clear as to who was better in those matches.

that is such a bad way to compare 2 bowlers

 

[Starfighter]

Is that actually the case though?

In Waqar's case yes. I'm talking about the end of career getting old, pace and rhythm disappearing sort of decline.

 

[stephen]

I wasn't being at all serious.

But since it's a vs battle that's all we should really consider right

 

[subshakerz]

Waqar - most destructive (look at his number of 5fers and 6fers), and death bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

Steyn and Anderson are still bowling well. Chris Martin had a good career too despite not being the champion the others still are. Waqar seemed to deteriorate earlier and I think it began in his mid to late 20s when you’d expect a pace man to be in his prime. He either got lazy maintaining fitness or suffered an injury that hobbled him. Maybe bit of both.

 

[trundler]

Steyn and Anderson are still bowling well. Chris Martin had a good career too despite not being the champion the others still are. Waqar seemed to deteriorate earlier and I think it began in his mid to late 20s when you’d expect a pace man to be in his prime. He either got lazy maintaining fitness or suffered an injury that hobbled him. Maybe bit of both.

Did his back.

 

[the big bambino]

Ah yep. I think the gulf in his stats either side of the mid 90s are revealing of a sudden catastrophe.

 

[vcs]

Waqar would have probably gone down as the greatest bowler of all time if he'd stayed at his early '90s peak, or close to it, for 5 more years. He just blew teams away.

 

[ankitj]

Waqar would have probably gone down as the greatest bowler of all time if he'd stayed at his early '90s peak, or close to it, for 5 more years. He just blew teams away.

Next only to Botham among players to have rapidly fallen off from an immense peak?

 

[J_C]

Waqar post 1994 in Tests against Top 8 sides:

130 wkts in 43 games @ 31.59 with a SR of 57.2 and 1 5-fer.

Waqar post 1994 in ODIs against Top 8 sides:

212 wkts in 135 games @ 25.87 with a SR of 30.7 and 6 5-fers!

Seems that the drastic drop in numbers was restricted to just Tests. His ODI numbers are just fine even after the back injury although he did have a ER of 5.05.

 

[ankitj]

212 wkts in 135 games against top 8 teams in supposedly your lean period is quiet good indeed. ER for Waqar overall is just not good enough especially when he played his last ODI in 2003. For this reason alone I would have him behind likes of Donald even, let alone misers like Akram, McGrath and Pollock.

 

[h_hurricane]

212 wkts in 135 games against top 8 teams in supposedly your lean period is quiet good indeed. ER for Waqar overall is just not good enough especially when he played his last ODI in 2003. For this reason alone I would have him behind likes of Donald even, let alone misers like Akram, McGrath and Pollock.

Exactly for that reason I would put Lee slightly ahead of Waqar. Lee's economy rate of 4.76 is better during his career period ( 2000-2012) than Waqar's 4.68 during his period(1989-2003).

On a side note, Ambrose must be one of the most under-rated ODI bowlers ever. An average of 24 and economy rate of 3.48. A true beast and a giant of the game !